29
CM
PA T
echn
ical
Rep
ort S
erie
s
Baseline study on the Biodiversity Awareness in
Selected Marine and Coastal Areas in Gujarat
November 2016
Indo-German Biodiversity ProgrammeConservation and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
GEER Foundation
CMPA Technical Report Series No. 29Baseline study on the Biodiversity Awareness in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas in Gujarat
AuthorsAlka Tomar, Center for Environment Communication (CEC)
Published by
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHIndo-German Biodiversity Programme (IGBP),GIZ-India, A-2/18, Safdarjung Enclave,New Delhi - 110029, IndiaE-Mail: [email protected]: www.giz.dehttp://indo-germanbiodiversity.com/
November 2016
ResponsibleDirector, Indo-German Biodiversity Programme
Photo CreditDr. Neeraj Khera
LayoutAspire Design, Delhi
DisclaimerThe views expressed in this document are solely those of the authors and may not in anycircumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the Ministry of Environment,Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, of the German FederalMinistry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB)or the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. Thedesignation of geographical entities and presentation of material in this document donot imply the expression or opinion whatsoever on the part of MoEFCC, BMUB or GIZconcerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or ofits authorities or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Referenceherein to any specific organisation, consulting firm, service provider or process followeddoes not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouringby MoEFCC, BMUB or GIZ.
CitationAlka Tomar. 2016. Baseline study on the Biodiversity Awareness in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas in Gujarat. CMPA Technical Series No. 29. Indo-German Biodiversity Programme, GIZ- India, New Delhi. Pp 80.
Baseline study on the Biodiversity Awareness in Selected Marine and
Coastal Areas in Gujarat
CMPA Technical Report Series
Indo-German Biodiversity Programme Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
29
November 2016
AuthorsAlka Tomar,
Center for Environment Communication (CEC)
Final Report by CEC 1
Disclaimer
This study has been financed through a contract with the Project on “Conservation and Sustainable
Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and Marine Protected Areas” (CMPA), of the Indo-German
Biodiversity Programme. The Project is jointly implemented by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and
Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India, and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB).
The information presented and the views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s)
and do not necessarily reflect the views of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, nor of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change,
or the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of MoEF&CC, BMUB, or GIZ concerning the legal or
development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific organisations, companies or products of
manufacturers, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by MoEF&CC, BMUB, or
GIZ in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
Final Report by CEC 3
Contents Section 1: Khijadiya Wildlife Sanctuary ............................................................................................... 5
LIST OF ACRONYMS ......................................................................................................................... 7
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 8
PROJECT OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 9
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 11
BASELINE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................... 14
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 33
Section 2: Gosabara Wetland Complex ............................................................................................ 40
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. 44
LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................... 45
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 46
PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 47
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 49
BASELINE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS ..................................................................... 52
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................... 76
Final Report by CEC 4
Final Report by CEC 5
Section 1: Khijadiya
Wildlife Sanctuary
Final Report by CEC 6
Final Report by CEC 7
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BCC: Biodiversity Communication Centre
BMC: Biodiversity Management Committee
BMUB: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CEC: Centre for Environment Communication
CEPA: Communication, Education & Public Awareness
CMPA: Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
DD: Doordarshan
ETV: Eenadu Television
GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
ICE: Information, Communication and Education
ICZM: Integrated Coastal Zone Management
MoEF&CC: Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
NGO: Non-governmental Organisation
PBR: People’s Biodiversity Register
UTV: United Television
Final Report by CEC 8
BACKGROUND
Indo-German Cooperation on Biodiversity
Recognising the importance of conserving and sustainably using coastal and marine biodiversity, the
Governments of India and Germany have fostered a partnership for the implementation of dedicated
programmes aimed at enhanced conservation of India's biodiversity, in line with the objectives of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Protecting the environment takes centre stage, in unison with the
principle of sustainable development and enhancement of human well-being.
The CMPA Project
The Conservation and Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
(CMPA) project is one of the flagship projects of the Indo-German technical cooperation supporting the CBD’s
Aichi targets. The Project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and implemented by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ) on behalf of BMUB.
The current project on the Biodiversity in Marine & Coastal Areas, Inland-Wetland Ecosystem and Forest
Ecosystems for selected Marine and Coastal Areas in India addresses the status of conservation measures and
what more needs to be done at the following project sites: Goa - Dr Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary (Chorao) Gujarat
- Gosa Bara Wetland and Madhavpur Turtle Area (Porbandar), Khijadiya Wildlife Sanctuary (Jamnagar)
Maharashtra - Thane Creek (Mumbai), Velas Coast (Ratnagiri), and Ansure Creek (Ratnagiri).
The project aims at facilitating measures that result in the following outputs:
• Participatory processes for the management of areas identified for conservation of biodiversity have
been implemented;
• A capacity development system for the sustainable management of coastal and marine protected
areas has been made available in Gujarat;
• Relevant stakeholders are aware of – and sensitised for – the importance of conserving biodiversity in
coastal and marine areas.
Final Report by CEC 9
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The study “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” is for
establishing benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with. The scope
of work also includes analysing the results of the benchmark and contributes in the recommendations for
impact-oriented information, education and communication (IEC) strategies for the concerned project sites in
Gujarat.
With the mission, ‘Communicating for Creating Sustainable Societies’, Centre for Environment Communication
(CEC) is committed to raising awareness among children, youth, and adults proactively on environmental
issues and promoting action to concretise the awareness. Under the aegis of its thematic Biodiversity
Communication Centre (BCC), CEC is working towards mainstreaming biodiversity conservation among the
people, at large, and the youth, specifically. CEC has been entrusted to undertake this study with the below
mentioned objectives and scope of work.
This report presents the outputs of the Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected
Marine and Coastal Areas” for the Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary (Jamnagar).
Objectives and Scope of Work
Objectives of the work are three-fold:
(a) Establish a benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with. The
benchmark indicators will be based on statistically supported results obtained during field surveys, the
indicators could comprise (but are not limited to):
• Individual level of general awareness on environmental issues.
• Site-specific knowledge of conservation issues.
• Knowledge about benefits derived from site-specific ecological services.
• Level of willingness to change personal behaviour (or income generating activities) in order to
conserve the coastal environment.
• Perception of the future in respect to the state of the environment.
(b) Analyse the results of the benchmark and recommend impact-oriented information, education and
communication strategies at the concerned project sites i.e. Gosa Bara Wetland Complex, Porbandar and
Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary, Jamnagar.
(c) Organise a two-day film festival on one of the project sites to engage the stakeholders in celebrating and
appreciating the coastal biodiversity.
Final Report by CEC 10
About CEC
Centre for Environment Communication (CEC) is committed to raising awareness among children, youth, and
adults proactively on environmental issues and promoting action to concretise the awareness. Through
consistent and sustained call for awareness and action, CEC aims to gradually engender behaviour change, at
large, towards environment and make its conservation a part of our daily concerns towards creating a good
life. CEC has collaborated with UNICEF, UNESCO, GIZ, PLAN INDIA, DELHI GOVERNMENT, and UNITED NATIONS
FOUNDATION for its various projects. www.cecin.org
Mission: Communicating for Creating Sustainable Societies
Final Report by CEC 11
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Desk Review and Background Paper
CEC developed a detailed background paper for the expected results, possible stakeholders, duration and
timeline based on the initial field visit undertaken in December first week. The detail note included a
methodology for the implementation of the baseline survey, stakeholders’ selection, sample size, contents of
questionnaires, and methods of analysis. Detailed discussions were held with the GIZ staff and other
organisations involved in the research studies as per the objectives of the assignment. Some documents were
also referred for deeper understanding of the project, stakeholders and the communication gaps and needs
i.e.
• 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971):
Resolution XII.9
• Handbook 6: Wetland CEPA
• ICZM Report of World Bank on communication assessment of Marine National Park
Based on the above discussions, field visits and referred documents, CEC identified the need for information
with reference to all stakeholders to create a universe of stakeholders truly representative of the project sites
and according to the priority of the project.
Overview of Project Sites
Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary, Jamnagar: Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary is a combination of incredible diversity of
ecosystems, which has marine and fresh water habitats, marshy lands, mangroves, prosopis, mudflats,
saltpans, creeks, forest scrub, sandy beaches, and even farmlands bordering the area. The sanctuary is home
to approx 220 species of resident and migratory birds, that provides birdwatchers with a delightful chance to
sight rare birds in large numbers.
The site is surrounded by villages like Jambuda, Vibhapar, Khijadiya, Dhunvav, and Sachana. We selected the
upstream and downstream villages Khijadiya and Jambuda. In this project site, the stakeholders include school
students, villagers with occupation as brass industry workers, ship breaking unit workers, saltpan workers,
farmers, farm labourers, plumbers, masons, animal grazers and businessmen surrounding the sanctuary;
tourists and visitors such as wildlife photographers, birdwatchers visit the sanctuary in large number. The
other stakeholders are government departments, corporate, tour operators, guides and NGOs. Schools
followed by birdwatchers and government departments and colleges contribute significantly to the universe.
Field Visits
Meeting and Field-visit to Finalise Methodology and Framework of Baseline Studies: The CEC team
undertook field missions along with the GIZ team and other partner organisations to the site in Gujarat from
Dec 02 – 04, 2015. During the field missions, discussions were held on the methodology and key questions to
create synergies between the various research studies. The team also had intense discussions on the
catchment area of the project sites. The universe and the sample size of the awareness baseline were also
reviewed and the forest department of both the sites provided strategic inputs.
Final Report by CEC 12
Preliminary Visit: The CEC senior researchers visited both the project site from Jan 06 – 12, 2016 to finalise the
sample size and to carry out a concept pretesting of the tools for understanding the knowledge level of the
NGOs, bird watchers, tourist, government officials, photographers, tourists, villagers and general public on the
indicators of the study. The tools and sample size was accordingly finalised.
Review Meeting: The CEC Team Leader attended the Midterm review meeting on 7 March 2016 at
the CCF MNP office, Jamnagar. During this meeting an overview, methodology, and the baseline
research key findings in the form of graphs and tables were presented.
Sample Size and Respondents
Table 1: Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary (Jamnagar), Gujarat
S No Stakeholders Total No
(UNIVERSE)
Sample
Size
Total
Respondents
1. Villages1 5 2 40
2. Colleges 10 3 45
3. Schools 10 3 45
4. Tourists 100 30 30
5. General Public 60 20 20
6. Wildlife Photographers 60 6 6
7. Bird Watchers 100 10 10
8. Guides and Tour Operator 9 9 9
9. NGOs2 5 5 5
10. Govt Departments3 5 5 5
11. Corporates4 1 1 1
Total 216
Research Tools
The baseline research was conducted through a mix of quantitative (interview schedule for Villagers, school
and college students, teachers, guides, tour operators, photographers, bird watchers, tourists and general
public) and qualitative research (discussion guidelines for Government officials, NGOs and Corporates).
1 Village Khijadiya: (Population: 2246 | Households: 443) | Village Jambuda: (Population: 3507 | Households:
739) | Village Dhunvav: (Population: 5285 | Households: 1110) | Village Vibhapar: (Population: 2600 |
Households: 407) | Village Sachana: (Population: 5416 | Households: 859)
2 NGOs: Late J V Nariya Education & Charitable Trust (JVNT), Nava Nagar Nature Club, Lakhota Nature Club,
Chaitanya Charitable Trust and Eco-development Committee
3 Govt Departments: Salinity Control Division; District Rural Development Agency (DRDA); District Watershed
Development Unit; Mission Mangalam; Office of Mamlatdar, Revenue Department; Fisheries Department
4 Corporate: Saurashtra Chemicals
*Occupation of Households: Farmers, farm labourers, other labourers (brass industry workers, salt pan workers, ship
breaking unit workers, plumbers, masons), animal grazers, job, businessmen
Final Report by CEC 13
Anaylsis
The data gathered during the field visits in January and February 2016 were scrutinized and coded in the field
by the interviewers and later in the office for consistency. The data entry and analysis has also been done. The
results are disaggregated by project sites and by gender, occupation, age, and target groups.
The individual level of general awareness of all stakeholders in terms of their understanding and awareness of
the biodiversity and environment issues has been assessed. Analysis was done on the knowledge level on
some of floral and faunal species found in the project sites; benefits both tangible and intangible derived by
the stakeholders; threats & solutions for the project sites; stakeholder’s connectedness with the project sites;
and their communication needs. Information was taken on what kind of communication mediums were
preferred by stakeholders in their daily life. Respondents’ future perception of the project sites was also taken.
Suggestions were also taken from the respondents on the communication activities that can be conducted for
increasing the awareness level of the stakeholders on the project sites.
Timeline and Deliverables
Table 2: Baseline Research Timeline and Deliverables
S No Tasks and Deliverables Timeline
1. Assignment started November 16, 2015
2. Draft methodology and plan for baseline study is submitted November 25, 2015
3. Draft methodology and plan for baseline study is presented at a
meeting in Gandhinagar, Porbandar and Jamnagar
December 02 - 04, 2015
4. Final methodology and plan for baseline study is submitted December 18, 2015
5. Interim report submitted January 05, 2016
6. Conducting baseline research January 06 – 12 and
Feb 07 - 17, 2016
7. Submission of draft report February 29, 2016
8. Midterm review meeting March 07, 2016
Final Report by CEC 14
BASELINE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS
Baselines are the “point zero” from where to measure the change from an intervention. A baseline is used
to measure and observe progress from a starting point. Hence, its purpose is instrumental to facilitating
reflection and reporting of change. (IUCN: Monitoring and Evaluation in Livelihoods and Landscapes).
The “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” resulted
from various sources. It comprised drawing up a questionnaire for each stakeholder group, a situation
analysis “of the state and condition of people and ecosystem (including identification of trends and
pressures), identification of major issues related to people and ecosystems that require attention, an
analysis of key stakeholders – groups of people and institutions with a right, mandate and/or interest in
resources and their management in the geographic area of the potential project”. (IUCN: Situation
Analysis – An Approach and Method for Analyzing the Context of Projects and Programme), and collection
of data from various stakeholders to be able to establish a benchmark on the awareness on biodiversity in
selected marine and coastal areas at the project site, Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary, Jamnagar and recommend
impact-oriented information, education and communication strategies through a mix of quantitative and
qualitative research. This section will present the inferences from the baseline research analysis
conducted under several parameters and put forth the key findings of the study.
The target audience at the project site was surveyed on a range of parameters to arrive at a holistic
picture on their levels of awareness on the biodiversity in their region and critical issues related to it,
which influenced their lifestyles. The parameters spanned their awareness levels on general
environmental & conservation issues and specifically related to the site; the benefits they derive from site-
specific ecological resources; their levels of willingness to change behaviours towards conserving the
coastal environment; how they perceive the future with respect to the state of the environment, and
finally, their communication needs – how do they best access information and knowledge related to their
natural environment and what it means to them. A detailed analysis of these parameters helped CEC to
arrive at key findings for the Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary (Jamnagar), Gujarat.
Respondent Information
The baseline in Jamnagar began with the gathering of preliminary information: understanding the profile
of the respondents, which would significantly determine their response on issues related to the
biodiversity of the region and its linkages with their lives. While conducting the survey, villagers returned
the highest number of response, followed by students, and the general public. Most of the villagers had
not studied beyond class 10 while many were illiterate. Higher levels of education, comprising largely
graduates, was found among the tourists, public, teachers, and the students, respectively. Villagers were
found to be engaged primarily in farming, with the maximum number of respondents across the
categories of public, teachers, and tourists holding private jobs.
Final Report by CEC 15
Table 3: Respondent's Occupation
(in percentage)
Occupation Villagers General Public
Tourists Teachers Wildlife photographers
Bird watchers
Guides
Govt service 5 0 0 83 0 0 11
Private job 10 35 47 7 0 0 44
Unemployed 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Farming 38 0 13 0 0 0 0
Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
Daily wage labour
3 10 0 0 0 0 0
Business 13 40 20 0 67 100 22
Housewife 20 15 17 3 0 0 0
Retired 8 0 3 0 0 0 11
Not Applicable 3 0 0 0 33 0 0
4.2 Awareness Level on Environment and Biodiversity Issues
Once the profile of the respondents was established, the survey moved on to the next step: understanding
the awareness levels of the respondent groups on biodiversity. At the outset, it must be stated that the
understanding of the respondent group in Jamnagar on biodiversity concepts and concerns has been
higher than the respondent group in Porbandar. Pollution, climate change, global warming, deforestation
were concepts that most villagers, along with students, teachers, the general public, tourists were equally
familiar with. When asked specifically whether biodiversity meant a variety of plant, animal, crops and
minerals on Earth, the villagers, general public and tourists all agreed with the option while the highest
response to this option came from college students. There was an almost equal understanding among the
same respondent group that biodiversity loss meant fewer resources, with the students also emphasising
that biodiversity loss meant fewer numbers of certain types of birds, animals and plants. Teachers and
tourists’ best understood the concept of ecological imbalance while villagers also displayed a good
understanding.
Table 4: Demystifying the "Biodiversity" Concepts (in percentage)
Response Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Correctly Understood
15 10 37 5 27 19
Incorrectly Understood
85 90 63 95 73 81
Final Report by CEC 16
College students, teachers and tourists showed an average understanding of “wetlands” as being “low
lying areas saturated with water”, with only 33% having knowledge of the concept. Tourists were the most
aware respondent group followed by the public and the students. Villagers have shown an awareness of
the role of wetlands in recharging groundwater and acting as a flood control, which is heartening. The
more educated segment evidently displayed a good understanding of the role of wetlands in the former
ways while understanding its role in providing a habitat for flora and fauna, filtering and purifying air, and
capturing waste carbon dioxide.
Table 5: Understanding of Wetlands
(In percentage)
Response Villagers School Students College Students General Public Tourists Total
Have knowledge 15 30 33 30 37 33
No knowledge 85 70 67 70 63 67
Most of the respondents have shown a very good understanding, including villagers, of the fact that a
coastal wetland is an area where rivers meet the sea and water changes from fresh to salt, which can offer
an extremely rich mix of biodiversity. The highest response on this understanding has come from teachers
and college students.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist Total
Correctly defined
Incorrectly defined
Demystifying the “Biodiversity” Concepts
(In percentage)
Final Report by CEC 17
Table 6: Interpretation of "Coastal Wetlands" (In percentage)
Response Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Correct Interpretation
8 7 0 0 13 5
Wrong Interpretation
93 93 100 100 87 96
Familiarity with the biodiversity concepts has been quite low with the highest levels of familiarity being
seen in students, specifically college students, with only a small percentage of villagers — 3% — having
heard about the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The public at 10% showed a better level of understanding
of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Apart from the students, the concepts Biodiversity Management
Committee and People’s Biodiversity Register drew a blank from all respondents.
Table 7: Familiarisation with the Biodiversity Terminologies (In percentage)
Terms Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists
Ramsar Site 0 0 10 0 0
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 3 3 13 10 0
Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC)
0 0 13 0 0
People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR)
0 0 7 0 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist Total
Aware
Unaware
Final Report by CEC 18
Site-specific Knowledge of Conservation Issues
A high number of respondents have visited the project site with villagers leading the numbers and
followed by teachers, students and the general public. Villagers, students, the general public, teachers,
and tourists knows the status of the site as a protected area with fair understanding of the site as a coastal
wetland, with a high level of comprehension of the site being a flourishing habitat for birds in general and
migratory birds specifically.
Table 8: Acquaintance with the Project Site (In percentage)
Response Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Visited this area 78 67 57 75 13 53
Heard about this area
23 33 37 20 43 29
Have knowledge about the area
3 3 10 20 0 6
Never heard about the area
3 3 0 10 40 10
Never visited this area
0 0 10 0 3 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Villager School Student College Student General Public Tourist
Ramsar Site
Biological DiversityAct, 2002
BiodiversityManagementCommittee (BMC)
People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR)
Familiarisation with Biodiversity Terminilogies (in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 19
Table 9: Conservation Issues Flagged by Respondents (in percentage)
Conservation Issues Villagers School Students
College Students
General Publics
Tourists Total
No water in this area 88 77 47 45 30 44
Less no of birds visit this area
8 7 43 5 10 11
Less fish/ food for birds 3 0 10 25 7 5
Poaching of birds 3 23 37 15 3 11
Water is used for agriculture
3 3 7 15 0 3
Excessive use of fertilizers and pesticides
0 3 17 0 0 3
Fishing is prevalent 0 7 20 5 0 4
Sewage or water discharged in this area
0 0 7 15 0 3
Don't know 8 7 7 20 67 15
The visits by villagers, weekly and fortnightly, have largely been for bird watching and farming while other
respondent groups such as students, teachers and the general public have been there for picnics.
Table 10: Purpose of Visit to Project Site (in percentage)
Purpose Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Bird Watching
45 35 24 47 75 33
Picnic 23 40 47 47 0 29
Study Tour 10 25 24 0 0 11
Nature Camp 3 15 6 0 0 5
Others 3 0 0 7 0 2
Farming 35 0 6 0 0 11
As a Tourist 0 5 29 0 50 8
Fishing 3 0 0 0 0 1
Table 11: Frequency of Visit to Project Site (In percentage)
Frequency Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Only once 6 40 53 47 25 31
Weekly 61 25 6 7 0 30
Fortnightly 19 15 0 0 25 12
Yearly 13 20 41 47 50 28
When asked about the floral species at the project site and their importance, villagers have responded
largely saying that it yields mostly fuel wood. Response to the other options such as medicinal values,
invasive species, good for nesting have drawn few responses.
Final Report by CEC 20
Changes in the landscape coming from the construction of infrastructure, buildings and facilities has been
cited as the biggest threat to the conservation of the site by a large number of respondents with
salination being picked as the second biggest conservation threat, echoing a similar concern at the Gosa
Bara Wetland Complex, Porbandar.
Table 12: Threats to the Conservation of Project site (In percentage)
Threats Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Salination 20 23 17 35 13 14
Industrial waste 8 10 37 40 7 12
Pesticide Pollution 13 33 43 15 20 16
Changes in the landscape coming from the construction of infrastructure, buildings and facilities
35 23 37 20 7 17
Tourism 18 10 23 5 10 9
Invasive species 10 3 10 0 0 4
Noise Pollution 8 0 0 5 0 2
Encroachment 3 0 7 0 10 3
Mobile Towers 5 13 10 5 7 5
Over Fishing 3 10 10 3
City's sewage 13 10 3 3
All 3 3 1
Don't know 13 10 10 10 50 12
The various biodiversity conservation initiatives being undertaken in the area are cleanliness drive, nature
camps, study tours for students, documentation of the flora and fauna species by wildlife students, restriction
on the entry of large vehicles, increase in entry fee, check on waste pollution, restriction on use of water for
irrigation, tree plantation. Schools are engaged in sparrow conservation efforts and are helping make nests for
the sparrows. Plantation of mangroves is being done to check the salinity, which has been diminishing the
fertility of the land.
With an above average site-specific knowledge, respondents are keen to recommend a visit to the project site
for friends and family.
Table 13: Recommending Others to Visit Project Site (In percentage)
Response Villagers School Students College Students General Public Tourists Total
Recommend 88 90 90 75 50 79
Don't Recommend
13 10 10 25 50 21
According to them, forest officials play the biggest role in the conservation of the site. In addition, respondents
feel that villagers, forest officials and guides have greater levels of awareness about the area as they live or
work in that area and have vast knowledge about the species, its behaviour and habitat.
Final Report by CEC 21
Table14: Role Model for Conserving the Project Site (In percentage)
Role Model Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Forest officials 35 37 50 55 27 24
Villagers 58 37 43 30 53 28
Government 35 37 27 20 27 19
NGOs 13 7 23 10 10 8
Eco Guides 0 3 20 15 7 5
School 0 13 13 0 0 3
Ecotour Operators
0 0 0 0 7 1
Salt Pan Workers
5 3 0 0 0 1
Fishermen 0 0 0 15 0 1
All of the above 0 3 10 15 0 3
Don't know 10 0 7 10 27 7
It is also felt that since, villagers, guides depend primarily on the project site for resources and their livelihood,
their stake in the project site, and their responsibility towards its conservation is higher. Among the
respondents, 45% value the site largely, while 37% value it to some extent.
Table 15: Value of Project Site as a Conserved Area (In percentage)
Value Level Villagers School Students
College Student
General Public
Tourists Total
To a great extent
45 53 53 35 33 45
To some extent
38 40 27 50 37 37
To less extent
8 3 3 5 0 4
Not at all 10 0 7 0 0 4
Don’t know 0 3 10 10 30 10
44.7
37.3
4
4 10
Value of Project Site as Conserved Area(in percentage)
To a great extent
To some extent
To less extent
Not at all
Don't know
Final Report by CEC 22
Benefits from Site-Specific Ecological Services
There is a healthy understanding on both the tangible and intangible benefits, which the project site
yields. Villagers, as seen in the earlier responses too, have shown the highest levels of awareness on this
parameter too, picking tourism (88%) and fuel wood (83%) as the major tangible benefits coming from the
site. The next highest responses on the same parameters have come from school students, teachers and
the general public, respectively. Respondents have also cited medicinal plants and fresh water as valuable
resources, which the site yields.
Table 16: Knowledge on the Tangible Benefits (In percentage)
Benefits Derived
Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists
Food 70 40 20 65 17
Fodder 85 63 40 80 20
Fuel Wood 83 57 57 55 17
Fresh Water 63 47 53 65 13
Tourism 88 73 77 90 30
Medicinal Plants
43 37 40 55 13
Other Benefits 13 7 0 40 7
Among the intangible benefits, clean and pure air with the site being the pride of place were picked as the
top benefits by villagers, followed closely by teachers and students.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Food Fodder Fuel WoodFresh Water TourismMedicinal Plants Other
Tourist
General Public
College Student
School Student
Villager
Tangible Benefits(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 23
Table 17: Knowledge on the Intangible Benefits (In percentage)
Benefits Derived Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Clean and pure air 83 77 73 95 43 39
Pride of the area 58 60 57 40 23 26
Habitat for species 10 13 20 15 7 7
Health and wellbeing 8 3 20 25 3 6
Aesthetic value 8 20 17 0 3 5
Waste water treatment 5 3 10 30 0 4
Maintenance of genetic diversity
0 0 10 0 0 1
Recreational opportunities 3 0 0 10 3 1
All 0 3 10 0 0 1
Captures wasted Carbon Dioxide
3 3 3 0 0 1
Pollination 0 0 3 0 0 0
Pest control 0 0 3 0 0 0
Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility
0 0 0 0 0 0
Don't know 8 13 0 0 50 8
The site was rated very highly as yielding health benefits to the respondents with a response of 88% from
villagers and 95% from the general public while its economic benefits was rated lower, standing at 63%, as
rated by the villagers, 67% by the college students, and only 45% by the general public.
Table18: Dependency on Project Site
(In percentage)
Dependency for Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists
Health and well being
88 90 67 95 70
Economic development
63 57 67 45 23
Final Report by CEC 24
Very few respondents felt that the site did not yield any benefits with the response largely inclined towards
the many benefits it yielded. As high as 40% felt that the site was of great value.
Table 19: Value of Benefits (In percentage)
Value Level Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
To a great extent
40 50 60 25 20 40
To some extent
30 33 27 25 37 31
To less extent
10 3 10 5 7 7
Not at all 13 10 0 25 0 9
Don't know 8 3 3 20 37 13
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist
Health and well being
Economic development
Dependency on Project Site
(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 25
With the fuel wood, tourism, medicinal value from plants being picked as the highest tangible benefits, it
seems like a natural corollary that the two top reasons for conserving the site should be to preserve the flora
and fauna (63%) and to promote tourism (40%). Other reasons to preserve the site were to maintain ecological
balance and promote livelihood.
Table 20: Why Project Site should be Protected? (In percentage)
Reasons Cited Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
To preserve the floral and faunal diversity
63 50 73 30 43 31
To promote tourism 40 50 37 60 43 25
To maintain ecological balance
20 30 60 45 13 18
To support livelihood 23 17 27 30 17 13
Because it has aesthetic beauty
20 10 30 15 13 10
Don't know 3 0 0 0 17 2
All 3 0 3 0 0 1
Significantly, many villagers also feel, on similar lines as seen at the Gosa Bara Wetland Complex in Porbandar,
that land should not be protected as it diminishes the value of the land. Respondents have largely shown an
above average understanding of the site.
12.1
9.1
4.8
3
70.9
Reasons - Benefits are not Valued(in percentage)
I don't get any suchbenefits
I am not depending onthis area for anything
Its not helping in thefamily income/ livelihood
It is my right as I live inthis area
Don't know
Final Report by CEC 26
Willingness for Conserving the Coastal Environment
Respondents find the conservation efforts not very satisfactory with more than 50% saying as much and feel
that the government should step up its efforts to conserve the site more intensively. To some extent,
respondents would also like to be engaged in the conservation efforts and display an average willingness to
change behaviours towards conservation.
Table 21: Interest Level in Conservation of Project Site
(In percentage)
Interest Level Villagers School Students College Students General Public Tourists Total
To a great extent 23 37 43 0 30 28
To some extent 38 50 40 60 47 45
Not at all 23 10 3 30 0 13
Don't know 18 3 13 10 23 14
Villagers would like to be engaged in cleaning the coastal areas and protecting the birds’ species. The general
public is keener on cleaning the project sites along with the NGOs and planting trees. Schoolteachers and
students would like to educate the villagers and engage in regular visits to the project site. Schools have
already been engaged in promoting sparrow nesting and their plantation drives are a positive step towards
creating natural habitats for the birds by increasing the green cover of the site. Touching upon an important
aspect, college teachers would like to educate the youth on environment laws. They would like students to
develop an understanding on industrial pollution and the law dealing with coastal area conservation besides
teaching them biodiversity conservation. More oriented towards call-to-action, college students have
expressed a desire to associate with NGOs and nature clubs in awareness activities and conduct plantation
activities.
Vision of the Future State of the Environment
In an encouraging development, all respondents view biodiversity as a very important issue in the future.
Table 22: Biodiversity Perceived as an Important Issue in Future (In percentage)
Importance Level
Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Very important 68 83 73 60 80 73
Somewhat important
15 13 23 35 17 19
Not too important
5 0 0 0 0 1
Don't know 13 3 3 5 3 6
Final Report by CEC 27
A good average of 35% would like to see the site “very rich in floral and faunal diversity”, 19% would like to see
it more protected and 14% would like to see it conserved with sufficient amount of water available.
Respondents have shown a high level of awareness about the future state of the environment at the project
site.
Table 23: Future Perception of Project Site (In percentage)
Perception Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Very rich in floral and faunal diversity 60 87 67 65 70 35
More protected and conserved 30 27 47 50 40 19
Recognised as an area of international conservation importance
18 17 30 45 20 12
Should have good amount of water 30 37 27 20 23 14
Recognised as an economic hub 18 20 7 0 17 7
Developed with all the modern amenities
15 0 13 15 3 5
All 3 7 20 5 3 4
Don't know 13 3 3 5 13 4
Remain in same status 5 0 0 10 0 1
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist Total
Don't know
Not too important
Somewhat important
Very important
Biodiversity Perceived as an Important Issue(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 28
Communication Needs
One of the most important aspects towards gauging the level of understanding of the respondent group on
biodiversity issues is to understand how they get their information, the communication modes available,
accessible and preferred by the respondents.
Sandesh, Gujarat Samachar, Divya Bhaskar are the newspapers which are read by all stakeholders including
villagers. Besides these, the general public, school and college teachers, school and college students, bird
watchers, guides, tourists and tour operators read Times of India, Nobat, Bhagya, Hindustan Times, Indian
Express and Economic Times.
Television closely followed by the newspaper is the most preferred mode of communication while the use of
social media is very low. The various channels being watched by the stakeholders are Aaj Tak, ABP News,
Animal Planet, Anjali, BBC News, Chanel V, Colours, DD Girnar, DD News, Discovery, ETV, Gujarat News, History
TV, India TV, Jamnagar89, Life OK, N B News, NatGeo Wild, National Geographic, NDTV, News Channel,
Romedy Now, SAB TV, Sandesh News, Sony, Star Gold, Star Plus, Star Utsav, TV9, UTV, ZEE Cinema, ZEE TV. It
has been observed that school students, teachers and general public watch all the entertainment and news
channels. College teachers view news channels and bird watchers watch environment and wildlife channels.
Table 24: Preferred and Reliable Method of Communication (In percentage)
Preferred Method
Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Television 80 73 73 90 93 34
Newspaper 53 53 70 70 63 25
Internet 23 57 57 75 60 21
Mobile 18 20 40 50 40 13
Books 8 17 30 5 7 6
Radio 3 0 3 15 10 2
33.5
25
20.9
12.9
5.5
2.2
Most Relied Method of Communication(in percentage)
Television
Newspaper
Internet
Mobile
Books
Radio
Final Report by CEC 29
Apart from the television and newspaper as preferred and reliable modes of seeking information, the
respondents also seek out relevant and reliable information on environment in general and biodiversity
specifically from their peer groups, teachers, eco-clubs and the Panchayat. Students, teachers, tourists and the
general public have also cited books, nature education camps and government documents, environment-
related NGOs and Eco Club committees as an important source of information on environment.
Nature camps followed by film screenings and then workshops have been perceived as being the most
organized activities organized on environment at the project site with an average level of participation in these
activities, standing at 40% and the non-participation at 54%.
Table 25: Participation in Awareness Activities (In percentage)
Response Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Participated 37 62 56 0 8 40
Not Participated
63 38 37 82 77 54
Don't Recall 0 0 7 18 15 6
The key messages identified from organized activities have been birds, in general, migratory birds and
biodiversity conservation of the area with a significant percentage of 52% considering such activities to be very
useful and 33% useful to some extent.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Villager School Student College Student General Public Tourist Total
Don't Recall
Not Participated
Participated
Participation in Awareness Activities(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 30
Table 26: Impact of Awareness Activities (In percentage)
Impact Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Very useful 35 70 63 45 50 52
Useful to some extent
45 20 33 50 17 33
Not much useful 0 0 0 0 3 1
Not at all useful 0 0 0 0 0 0
Don't know 20 10 3 5 30 15
Such activities were primarily perceived as being targeted towards students and have been seen to be very
effective and important in creating awareness and motivating people to conserve the rich biodiversity of the
project site, across respondent groups.
Table 27: Target Audience for Awareness Activities on Biodiversity Issues (In percentage)
Target Audience
Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
School children
50 53 47 55 47 32
General Public
18 20 33 30 37 17
Villagers 45 37 13 20 40 21
Teachers 13 10 30 15 13 10
Tourists 13 3 13 10 13 7
All 13 13 3 20 27 4
Don't know 0 0 23 0 7 9
Target Audience for Awareness Activities on Biodiversity Issues (in percentage)
School children
General Public
Villagers
Teachers
Tourists
All
Don't know
Final Report by CEC 31
A crucial aspect is the general lack of awareness as well as willingness to be involved in biodiversity
conservation activities. One reason is the low levels of literacy in the project site. However, an important and
recurring response has been that designating the site as a protected area and too many conservation activities
will mean that the natural resources have been “taken away from them” and a “loss of livelihood” to the
stakeholders.
Table 28: Key Barriers in Creating Awareness for Behavioural Change (In percentage)
Barriers Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Lack of interest in the issue
48 50 47 50 40 22
Lack of knowledge about the subject
35 43 53 45 40 21
Language 30 13 23 30 37 13
Have other priorities 25 27 10 25 30 11
Lack of time 35 20 23 30 17 12
Use of technical language
18 10 20 15 17 8
Lack of resources 3 3 30 30 10 6
Family's disapproval 5 10 10 10 10 4
Don't know 3 0 0 5 20 3
Alternative livelihood options are not available and hence, site conservation is not high on the priority list
neither is it much desired. Regular and sustained interventions by NGOs and clubs such as the Lions Club and
the Rotary Club, free awareness camps, a Nagar Palika Award, and regular media coverage of positive
environment conservation efforts, rallies, and regular advertisement s on conservation issues related to the
project site in newspapers and on preferred television channels have been suggested as impactful methods to
raise awareness and get more people involved in conserving the biodiversity of the Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary,
Jamnagar.
Table 29: Motivational Tools to Conserve Biodiversity (In percentage)
Tools Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Reinforce conservation messages through different activities
45 70 60 85 60 40
Frequent Campaigns 25 40 47 60 37 26
Felicitate the champions with Green ambassador awards
23 33 43 10 20 17
Provide economic incentives 5 13 37 0 7 8
Don't know 20 0 0 10 23 7
All 3 0 3 5 0 1
Final Report by CEC 32
Table 30: Role Model for Communicating Biodiversity Communication Messages (In percentage)
Role Model Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Teachers 55 63 67 60 57 40
Celebrities 25 33 47 40 57 26
Religious Leaders
15 7 30 40 3 12
Community Leaders
10 3 30 10 3 8
Politicians 8 20 7 15 17 8
Panchayat heads
20 7 0 0 0 4
Talati cum Mantri
0 3 0 10 3 2
Teachers, celebrities, Panchayat, and religious leaders have an important role to play in motivating people
towards conservation, according to the respondents. Sports personalities, bird watchers, and well-known
environmentalists were identified as another important group of stakeholders who could help to motivate
people in conserving the wetland.
Final Report by CEC 33
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” was for
establishing a benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with.
The benchmark indicators comprise:
- Individual level of general awareness on environmental issues.
- Site-specific knowledge of conservation issues.
- Knowledge about benefits derived from site-specific ecological services.
- Level of willingness to change personal behaviour (or income generating activities) in order to
conserve the coastal environment.
- Perception of the future in respect to the state of the environment.
- Communication Needs
Overall, the level of understanding on issues related to the biodiversity and conservation concerns of the
Sanctuary is good standing at 34%. Where technical expressions are introduced such as the Ramsar Site,
Biodiversity Act, 2002, or the BMC and the PBR, the responses have been vague. However, when specific
options have been cited on the indicators, which they have been likely to experience in their daily lives, the
responses have been more forthcoming.
Table 31: Awareness Level on Biodiversity Issues
(In percentage)
Level Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 0 3 0 0 3 1
Very Good 8 3 20 35 27 17
Good 30 40 30 30 40 34
Fair 50 33 37 30 23 36
Poor 13 20 13 5 7 12
Knowledge specifically about the site has been good at 57% showing knowledge of the site as a protected area
and its benefits to their lives.
Table 32: Level of Site-specific Knowledge
(In percentage)
Knowledge Level
Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 3 0 0 10 0 2
Very Good 10 10 47 5 7 16
Good 68 63 27 70 57 57
Fair 20 23 27 15 13 20
Poor 0 3 0 0 23 5
Final Report by CEC 34
Significantly, a major concern, which has emerged from the baseline research, has been a general level of
unwillingness to engage in conservation activity. On the surface while, this is the story, there is an underlying
concern on declaring the site as a protected area or stepping up conservation activities, which is worrying the
respondents — once the project site is declared as protected, they will no longer be able to derive their
sustenance from it such as fish, fuel wood, and medicines. The lack of alternative livelihood options and the
cordoning off the site, as a protected will affect them negatively, which is why they are not too keen to engage
in conservation activities.
Where organised activities, technical concepts and the digital media come in, the response has been higher
from teachers, students and tourists. Where the impacts are visible on the ground and the grass roots changes
influence their daily activities, the villagers have been more forthcoming.
With reference to the tangible benefits, the wetland yields irrigation to 14 villages while fishing is an important
source of livelihood. The site also yields many intangible benefits to the people. It provides a good site for bird
watching and photography; preserving the aesthetic value of the site will not only attract tourists but also
prove to be a draw for the local population and the students while providing a thriving hhabitat for a variety of
birds and fish.
Table 33: Knowledge Level with regards to Site-specific Benefits
(In percentage)
Level Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 0 0 3 10 0 2
Very Good 10 3 37 30 23 19
Good 65 67 50 55 57 59
Fair 25 30 7 5 17 18
Poor 0 0 3 0 3 1
With internet accessibility limited among the respondents owing to the low levels of literacy and awareness of
the digital domain, television is the most preferred source of information followed by the newspaper. A
regular, sustained intervention by the government, NGOs, and forest officers, though, is being seen as an
impactful method to raise awareness levels on the biodiversity issues of the project site and get more people
involved.
The perception level of stakeholders about the future vision of the site and its conservation is average at 50%
though what is significant is that 39% have a high level of perception of the site as being important to their
future and that its conservation in the future is of tremendous relevance as their lives are inter-linked with the
project site.
Final Report by CEC 35
Table 34: Perception Level of the Stakeholders
(In percentage)
Level Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Very high 3 0 7 10 3 4
High 38 50 43 25 37 39
Average 50 50 47 50 53 50
Low 3 0 0 10 7 3
Very low 8 0 3 5 0 3
Providing people with alternative sources of livelihood is also seen as an important input, which will help to
mould behaviours, and attitudes positively towards conservations as the livelihood concern will be then
adequately met. When the daily struggle is to be able to earn a decent livelihood, conserving biodiversity
might seem like an onerous task, though, the good health of the biodiversity is what will sustain the local
population, in the end.
Table 35: Willingness Level to Change Personal Behaviours for Conserving the Coastal Environment
(In percentage)
Level Villagers School Students
College Students
General Public
Tourists Total
Very high 0 0 3 0 0 1
High 13 17 43 35 30 26
Average 80 63 50 50 70 65
Low 8 20 0 15 0 8
Very low 0 0 3 0 0 1
Hence, regular awareness raising activities, workshops, fairs, government intervention, and raising the levels of
education need to be intensively focused upon to establish the linkage between flourishing biodiversity health
and flourishing local lifestyles.
Final Report by CEC 36
Important Issues Affecting Biodiversity of Project Site
Birds
- Shikari (Hunter) community near Khijadiya indulges in poaching of birds. They catch birds by creating
a loud noise and using kites and nets, which causes injury to the birds.
- Farmers create a din and noise to scare away wild animals in the process causing disturbance to the
birds.
- More of commercial crops are grown, thus less birds visit the area as they do not get enough food.
- Decreasing rainfall has led to decline in the number of bird visits.
Tourism
- Excessive, unregulated tourism is a threat.
- More visits by people leads to noise pollution and leads to decline in the birds visit in the area.
- City-dwellers go to Khijadiya for leisurely picnics and end up dumping plastic at the site, which affects
the growth of planktons.
Livelihoods
- No economic activity is being carried out as it is a protected area. Only environment-friendly activity
can be done.
Salt pans
- Water salinity is too high.
- Salt pan has affected the agriculture land and it has become unfertile; underground water is not being
recharged.
- Salt pan workers burn wood for fuel purpose causing pollution.
Invasive species
- Invasive species such as gandobaval do not let other plants grow and destroy the fertility of the
region. Government has disallowed cutting down of gandobaval as it controls floods.
Initiatives taken for conservation
- Pakshi Bachao Abhiyan (Save the birds campaign) – NGOs have been distributing nests (cardboard or
clay made) to people to encourage bird nesting.
- Religious linkages have been established to save biodiversity by using the terminology “Ram ki
chidiya, Ram ka khet i.e. keeping a row for keeping grains for birds in farms to encourage
conservation of biodiversity.
- Government has been organizing nature camps to raise awareness levels on biodiversity and
conservation issues and encourage people to engage in conservation activities.
Final Report by CEC 37
Recommendations
• In Jamnagar trees are scarce. A greater variety of indigenous species of trees should be planted to provide
habitat for various kinds of birds and to provide a pure & clean environment.
• Unregulated tourism is becoming a menace. Proper guidelines for tourists in the project area need to be
formulated and implemented to promote regulated eco-tourism.
• Regular, sustained interventions in the form of nature camps, workshops, fairs, one-to-one interaction points by the government, NGOs and forest officers will help to make information on biodiversity more accessible while providing a platform to clear doubts and apprehensions.
• To engage greater numbers of stakeholders in conserving the coastal biodiversity greater suppport needs to be provided by the NGOs and Government.
• Efforts to raise education levels will help to people undestand how the well-being of the site positively impacts their social and economic well-being.
• Provision of alternative livelihoods will help reduce dependance on the site and halt overfishing.
• Once it has been clearly established that stakeholders have a direct dependance on the project site there will be a greater level of willingness to change personal behaviour. This specific linkage must be established with the help of appropriate IEC strategy.
• Providing alternative livelihood options to the people needs to be looked at actively so that they turn their attention to the conservation of the site and not look at it merely as a source of earning their livelihoods.
• Methods to address the salinity of the land must be activley explored as it is depleting the fertility of the land.
• Most preferred role models for communicating biodiversity conservation messages are community leaders and teachers, and their role in raising awareness needs to be expanded by intensifying their engagement via workshops.
Final Report by CEC 38
Final Report by CEC 40
Section 2: Gosabara
Wetland Complex
Final Report by CEC 42
Final Report by CEC 44
List of Tables
Table 10 Importance of Project Site 18
Table 11 Linkage of Project Site 19
Table 12 Concerns Related to Project Site 19
Table 13 Threats Impacting the Project Site 20
Table 14 Recommendation to Visit the Project Site 21
Table 15 Role Model in Conservation of Project Site 21
Table 16 Value Assigned with Project Site as Conserved Area 21
Table 17 Tangible Benefits 22
Table 18 Intangible Benefits 23
Table 19 Dependency on Project Site 24
Table 20 Reasons Cited for Conserving the Project Site 24
Table 21 Value of Benefits 25
Table 22 Why Benefits are not Valued 26
Table 23 Perception of Engagement in Conservation Efforts 26
Table 24 Satisfaction Level with Conservation Efforts 27
Table 25 Initiatives to Conserve Biodiversity of Project Site 27
Table 26 Perception of Biodiversity as an Important Issue 28
Table 27 Future Envisioning of Project Site 28
Table 28 Preferred and Reliable Method of Communication 30
Table 29 Participation in Awareness Activities 31
Table 30 Positive Impact of Awareness Activities 31
Table 31 Key Messages or Themes of Awareness Activities 31
Table 32 Target Audience for Awareness Activities 32
Table 33 Key Barriers in Creating Awareness for Behavioural Change 33
Table 34 Motivational Tools to Conserve Biodiversity 33
Table 35 Role Model for Communicating Biodiversity Conservation Messages 34
Table 36 Biodiversity Awareness Level of the Affected Population 35
Table 37 Site-specific Knowledge Level 35
Table 38 Knowledge Level of the Affected Population about Benefits Derived from
Site-Specific Ecological Services
36
Table 39 Willingness Level to Change Personal Behaviour 36
Table 40 Perception Level with Regards to Future State of Environment 37
Final Report by CEC 45
LIST OF ACRONYMS
BCC: Biodiversity Communication Centre
BMC: Biodiversity Management Committee
BMUB: German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
CBD: Convention on Biological Diversity
CEC: Centre for Environment Communication
CEPA: Communication, Education & Public Awareness
CMPA: Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
DD: Doordarshan
ETV: Eenadu Television
GIZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
ICE: Information, Communication and Education
ICZM: Integrated Coastal Zone Management
MoEF&CC: Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change
NGO: Non-governmental Organisation
PBR: People’s Biodiversity Register
UTV: United Television
Final Report by CEC 46
BACKGROUND
Indo-German Cooperation on Biodiversity
Recognising the importance of conserving and sustainably using coastal and marine biodiversity, the
Governments of India and Germany have fostered a partnership for the implementation of dedicated
programmes aimed at enhanced conservation of India's biodiversity, in line with the objectives of the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Protecting the environment takes centre stage, in unison with the
principle of sustainable development and enhancement of human well-being.
The CMPA Project
The Conservation and Sustainable Management of Existing and Potential Coastal and Marine Protected Areas
(CMPA) project is one of the flagship projects of the Indo-German technical cooperation supporting the CBD’s
Aichi targets. The Project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation,
Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and implemented by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate
Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
(GIZ) on behalf of BMUB.
The current project on the Biodiversity in Marine & Coastal Areas, Inland-Wetland Ecosystem and Forest
Ecosystems for selected Marine and Coastal Areas in India addresses the status of conservation measures and
what more needs to be done at the following project sites: Goa - Dr Salim Ali Bird Sanctuary (Chorao) Gujarat
- Gosa Bara Wetland and Madhavpur Turtle Area (Porbandar), Khijadiya Wildlife Sanctuary (Jamnagar)
Maharashtra - Thane Creek (Mumbai), Velas Coast (Ratnagiri), and Ansure Creek (Ratnagiri).
The project aims at facilitating measures that result in the following outputs:
• Participatory processes for the management of areas identified for conservation of biodiversity have
been implemented;
• A capacity development system for the sustainable management of coastal and marine protected
areas has been made available in Gujarat;
• Relevant stakeholders are aware of – and sensitised for – the importance of conserving biodiversity in
coastal and marine areas.
Final Report by CEC 47
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The study “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” is for
establishing benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with. The scope
of work also includes analysing the results of the benchmark and contributes in the recommendations for
impact-oriented information, education and communication (IEC) strategies for the concerned project sites in
Gujarat.
With the mission, ‘Communicating for Creating Sustainable Societies’, Centre for Environment Communication
(CEC) is committed to raising awareness among children, youth, and adults proactively on environmental
issues and promoting action to concretise the awareness. Under the aegis of its thematic Biodiversity
Communication Centre (BCC), CEC is working towards mainstreaming biodiversity conservation among the
people, at large, and the youth, specifically. CEC has been entrusted to undertake this study with the below
mentioned objectives and scope of work.
This report presents the outputs of the Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected
Marine and Coastal Areas” for the Gosa Bara Wetland and Madhavpur Turtle Area (Porbandar).
Objectives and Scope of Work
Objectives of the work are three-fold:
(d) Establish a benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with. The
benchmark indicators will be based on statistically supported results obtained during field surveys, the
indicators could comprise (but are not limited to):
• Individual level of general awareness on environmental issues.
• Site-specific knowledge of conservation issues.
• Knowledge about benefits derived from site-specific ecological services.
• Level of willingness to change personal behaviour (or income generating activities) in order to
conserve the coastal environment.
• Perception of the future in respect to the state of the environment.
(e) Analyse the results of the benchmark and recommend impact-oriented information, education and
communication strategies at the concerned project sites i.e. Gosa Bara Wetland Complex, Porbandar and
Khijadiya Bird Sanctuary, Jamnagar.
(f) Organise a two-day film festival on one of the project sites to engage the stakeholders in celebrating and
appreciating the coastal biodiversity.
Final Report by CEC 48
About CEC
Centre for Environment Communication (CEC) is committed to raising awareness among children, youth, and
adults proactively on environmental issues and promoting action to concretise the awareness. Through
consistent and sustained call for awareness and action, CEC aims to gradually engender behaviour change, at
large, towards environment and make its conservation a part of our daily concerns towards creating a good
life. CEC has collaborated with UNICEF, UNESCO, GIZ, PLAN INDIA, DELHI GOVERNMENT and UNITED NATIONS
FOUNDATION for its various projects. www.cecin.org
Mission: Communicating for Creating Sustainable Societies
Final Report by CEC 49
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
Desk Review and Background Paper
CEC developed a detailed background paper for the expected results, possible stakeholders, duration and
timeline based on the initial field visit undertaken in December first week. The detail note included a
methodology for the implementation of the baseline survey, stakeholders’ selection, sample size, contents of
questionnaires, and methods of analysis. Detailed discussions were held with the GIZ staff and other
organisations involved in the research studies as per the objectives of the assignment. Some documents were
also referred for deeper understanding of the project, stakeholders and the communication gaps and needs
i.e.
• 12th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971):
Resolution XII.9
• Handbook 6: Wetland CEPA
• ICZM Report of World Bank on communication assessment of Marine National Park
Based on the above discussions, field visits and referred documents, CEC identified the need for information in
terms of covering all stakeholders to create a universe of stakeholders truly representative of the project sites
and according to the priority of the project.
Overview of Project Sites
Gosa Bara Wetland – Madhavpur: The Gosabara creek forms a part of the Mokarsagar-Gosabara wetland
complex. Waterbird census records provided by local birdwatchers indicate presence of over 100 waterbird
species. Recently fishing within the wetland complex has been banned by the Forest Department to reduce
anthropogenic stress on migrating waterbirds. Discharge of untreated waste from Porbandar City and
industrial areas is a major threat to the site. Post monsoon, the exposed beds of Mokarsagar are subject to
extensive grazing altering natural soil profiles and damaging bird-nesting site. Around 40 villages dot the
margins of the wetland complex. The closest settlements are village Mokar, Gosa, Tukda Gosa and Madhavpur.
Mokar and Tukda Gosa are the upstream and downstream villages selected for the baseline research.
Educational institutions comprise a larger percentage of the universe followed by NGOs and government
departments. The stakeholders comprise photographers, birdwatchers, guides, NGOs, and government
departments.
Field Visits
Meeting and Field-visit to Finalise Methodology and Framework of Baseline Studies: TheCEC team undertook
field missions along with the GIZ team and other partner organisations to the site in Gujarat from Dec 02 – 04,
2015. During the field missions, discussions were held on the methodology and key questions to create
synergies between the various research studies. The team also had intense discussions on the catchment area
of the project sites. The universe and the sample size of the awareness baseline were also reviewed and the
forest department of both the sites provided strategic inputs.
Preliminary Visit: TheCEC senior researchers visited both the project site from Jan 06 – 12, 2016 to finalise the
sample size and to carry out a concept pretesting of the tools for understanding the knowledge level of the
NGOs, bird watchers, tourist, government officials, photographers, tourists, villagers and general public on the
indicators of the study. The tools and sample size was accordingly finalised.
Final Report by CEC 50
Review Meeting: The CEC Team Leader attended the Midterm review meeting on 7 March 2016 at
the CCF MNP office, Jamnagar. During this meeting an overview, methodology, and the baseline
research key findings in the form of graphs and tables were presented.
Sample Size and Respondents
Table 1: Gosa Bara Wetland – Madhavpur (Porbandar), Gujarat
S No Stakeholders Total No
(Universe)
Sample
Size
Total Respondents
1. Villages5 4 2 40
2. Colleges & University 7 2 30
3. Schools 10 3 45
4. Tourists 67 20 20
5. General Public 60 20 20
6. Wildlife Photographers and Bird
Watchers
10 3 3
7. Guides and Tour Operators 3-4 4 4
8. NGOs 6 9 9 9
9. Govt Departments7 6 6 6
Total 177
Research Tools
The baseline research was conducted through a mix of quantitative (interview schedule for Villagers, school
and college students, teachers, guides, tour operators, photographers, bird watchers, tourists and general
public) and qualitative research (discussion guidelines for Government officials, NGOs and Corporates).
Gosa Bara Wetland – Madhavpur (Porbandar), Gujarat
1. Villages: Mokar, Gosa, Tukda Gosa and Madhavpur
6 NGOs:Mokar Sagar Wetland Conservation Committee, Next Gen Nature Club, Green Wildlife Conservation
Society(GWCS) Nature Club, Prakriti The Youth Society, Nature Club Porbandar, Fishermen Association, Bird
Conservation Society, Sakhi Mandal, Lohana Maha Parishad
7 Govt Departments:, Irrigation Department, Salinity Control Division, Director of Fisheries,Gujarat Maritime Board,
District Collector’s Office, District Development Officer
Final Report by CEC 51
Analysis
The data gathered during the field visits in January and February 2016 were scrutinized and coded in the field
by the interviewers and later in the office for consistency. The data entry and analysis has also been done. The
results are disaggregated by project sites and by gender, occupation, age, and target groups.
The individual level of general awareness of all stakeholders in terms of their understanding and awareness of
the biodiversity and environment issues has been assessed. Analysis was done on the knowledge level on
some of floral and faunal species found in the project sites; benefits both tangible and intangible derived by
the stakeholders; threats & solutions for the project sites; stakeholder’s connectedness with the project sites;
and their communication needs. Information was taken on what kind of communication mediums were
preferred by stakeholders in their daily life. Respondents’ future perception of the project sites was also taken.
Suggestions were also taken from the respondents on the communication activities that can be conducted for
increasing the awareness level of the stakeholders on the project sites.
Timeline and Deliverables
Table 2: Baseline Research Timeline and Deliverables
S No Tasks and Deliverables Timeline
9. Assignment started November 16, 2015
10. Draft methodology and plan for baseline study is submitted December 01, 2015
11. Draft methodology and plan for baseline study is presented at a meeting in
Gandhinagar, Porbandar and Jamnagar
December 02 - 04, 2015
12. Final methodology and plan for baseline study is submitted December 18, 2015
13. Interim report submitted January 05, 2016
14. Conducting baseline research January 06 – 12 and
Feb 07 - 17, 2016
15. Submission of draft report February 29, 2016
16. Midterm review meeting March 07, 2016
Final Report by CEC 52
BASELINE RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND KEY FINDINGS
Baselines are the “point zero” from where to measure the change from an intervention. A baseline is used
to measure and observe progress from a starting point. Hence, its purpose is instrumental to facilitating
reflection and reporting of change.(IUCN: Monitoring and Evaluation in Livelihoods and Landscapes).
The “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” resulted
from various sources. It comprised drawing up a questionnaire for each stakeholder group, a situation
analysis “of the state and condition of people and ecosystem (including identification of trends and
pressures), identification of major issues related to people and ecosystems that require attention, an
analysis of key stakeholders – groups of people and institutions with a right, mandate and/or interest in
resources and their management in the geographic area of the potential project”. (IUCN: Situation
Analysis – An Approach and Method for Analyzing the Context of Projects and Programme), and collection
of data from various stakeholders to be able to establish a benchmark on the awareness on biodiversity in
selected marine and coastal areas at the project site, Gosa Bara Wetland Complex, Porbandar and
recommend impact-oriented information, education and communication strategies through a mix of
quantitative and qualitative research. This section will present the inferences from the baseline research
analysis conducted under several parameters and put forth the key findings of the study.
The target audience at the project site was surveyed on a range of parameters to arrive at a holistic
picture on their levels of awareness on the biodiversity in their region and critical issues related to it,
which influenced their lifestyles. The parameters spanned their awareness levels on general
environmental & conservation issues and specifically related to the site; the benefits they derive from site-
specific ecological resources; their levels of willingness to change behaviours towards conserving the
coastal environment; how they perceive the future with respect to the state of the environment, and
finally, their communication needs – how do they best access information and knowledge related to their
natural environment and what it means to them. A detailed analysis of these parameters helped CEC to
arrive at key findings for the Gosa Bara Wetland Complex, Porbandar.
Respondent Information
The baseline in Porbandar started out with the first step: understanding the profile of the respondents,
which would significantly determine their response on issues related to the biodiversity of the region and
its linkages with their lives. While conducting the survey, villagers returned the highest number of
response, followed by the teachers, tourists, public and the students. Most of the villagers had not studied
beyond class 10 while many were illiterate. Higher levels of education, comprising largely graduates, was
found among the tourists, public, teachers, and the students, respectively. Villagers were found to be
engaged primarily in farming, with the maximum number of respondents across the categories of public,
teachers, and tourists holding private jobs. Monthly income across categories largely did not exceed Rs
50,000/-.
Final Report by CEC 53
Table 3: Respondent's Occupation
(in percentage)
Occupation Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourist Teachers Wildlife
Photographers
Guides
Govt service 3 - - 20 15 56 0 25
Private job 0 - - 10 25 36 0 25
Unemployed 10 - - 10 5 0 0 0
Farming 63 - - 0 0 0 0 0
Fishing 0 - - 5 0 0 0 0
Daily wage
labour
5 - - 0 0 0 0 0
Business 5 - - 25 25 100 50
Housewife 13 - - 15 15 8 0 0
Retired 0 - - 10 0 0 0
Not
Applicable
3 100 95 0 5 0 0 0
Others 0 0 5 5 10 0 0 0
Awareness Level on Environment and Biodiversity Issues
Equipped thus with an understanding of the demographic, social and economic profile of the region, the
survey sought to focus on the key topic: understanding awareness levels on biodiversity. Not many people
had a clear understanding on what exactly the term biodiversity meant with 86% defining it incorrectly.
Table 4: Understanding Biodiversity Concepts
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Yes 3 10 50 0 20 14
No 98 90 50 100 80 86
From the villagers, to the school and college students to the general public, what the term biodiversity
encompassed was not clearly understood. When asked specifically whether biodiversity meant a variety of
plant, animal, crops and minerals on Earth, the maximum number of responses in the affirmative came
from teachers, college students, and tourists. While the least understanding of the term biodiversity,
even when specific options were clearly given, was seen among the villagers, conversely, when asked if
biodiversity loss meant fewer resources, the highest response in the affirmative came from them. This
pattern points to the fact that while specific technical terms might not be understood by them, the
villagers do feel the impacts of the loss of biodiversity in their lives and hence, were able to point out that
natural resources were dwindling. The concept of ecological imbalance was best understood by the
educated segment of the target audience comprising teachers, school and college students. On the
reasons for the loss in biodiversity, the highest comprehension on the reasons for the losses listed –
pollution, deforestation, increase in human population, indiscriminate use of natural resources and
habitat destruction – could be seen in the students. Apart from the students, the general public agreed to
a huge extent that factors listed were responsible for the loss of biodiversity.
Final Report by CEC 54
Teachers felt that biodiversity loss was leading to a diminishing of natural beauty, which act as natural
stress soothers and constitute a major tourist attraction. The weather had “changed”, people were not as
connected to nature as was seen in the older days, and industrial waste was polluting natural resources.
Extinction of animal and bird species, climate change, loss of forest cover and scarcity of water has
emerged as the best understood impacts of loss of biodiversity. Respondents have not been able to link
the rise in infectious diseases with the loss of biodiversity. It has been very heartening to note that very
few people have not felt the impacts of loss of biodiversity, with the majority feeling the impact of the loss
in some way or the other. Villagers dependant on agriculture for their livelihood feel that rainfall is not as
abundant as before due to the loss of biodiversity and the salt pan work has reduced the fertility of the
land has decreased. A ban on the saltpan work was also suggested to prevent degradation of the land.
When people are questioned on a broad term such as “What are the impacts of biodiversity loss”, the
response seen is mostly an “I do not know” but when presented with specific options such as loss of
natural cover, change in climate, scarcity of water, the term has been better understood and the response
more forthcoming. Following the three R’s – Reduce, reuse, recycle and halting deforestation have
emerged as the best solutions to conserve biodiversity while other suggestions have been stopping
saltpan work. Educated segments of students, teachers and the tourists have suggested raising awareness
via seminars, peoples participating, ban on dumping waste in water bodies, strict conservation laws,
banning kite flying to prevent injuries to the birds, as impactful ways to conserve biodiversity.
While villagers have some understanding (30%) on what wetlands are and their role in recharging
groundwater, protecting from floods, and purifying water, they are not sure of its role in stabilizing
climate conditions and controlling pests. In general, these two aspects are not well understood by villagers
or the general public. Largely, students and teachers are aware of these two benefits of wetlands.
Teachers have said that wetlands help biodiversity flourish by providing food and habitat for birds.
Pollution and dumping of waste is considered the biggest threat to wetlands by more than 50% of the
respondents. Excessive tourism and development are also perceived as major threats to the wetlands.
Table 5: Acquaintance with Wetlands
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Aware 28 30 30 45 20 30
Unaware 73 70 70 55 80 70
What then should be the solutions to conserve wetlands? Proper land use planning has been suggested by the
majority as an important way to conserve wetlands. Efforts to prevent dumping and raising awareness among
people on the benefits of wetlands in recharging groundwater and acting as natural flood controls while
providing a flourishing habitat for birds is also perceived to be an important solution to conserving wetlands.
An important suggestion from tour guides in the region has been to provide alternative livelihood options to
the village youth.
Final Report by CEC 55
Understanding of the term “coastal wetlands” is very low, standing at 8% only with college students
showing the highest level of understanding. More than 50% of the cases surveyed in the project site have
never heard about the terms Ramsar Site, Biological Diversity Act, 2002, Biodiversity Management
Committee, or the People’s Biodiversity Register. Overall, an above average level of awareness is observed
among the respondents at the Gosa Bara Wetland Complex on general environmental and biodiversity
issues related to the site.
Table 6: Understanding of Coastal Wetlands
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Have knowledge 3 20 10 0 5 8
No knowledge 98 80 90 100 95 92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist Total
Aware
Unaware
Acquaintance with Wetlands(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 56
Table 7: Awareness about Biodiversity Terminologies
(in percentage)
Biodiversity Terminologies Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists
Ramsar Site 3 7 5 5 0
Biological Diversity Act, 2002 3 13 15 5 0
Biodiversity Management Committee (BMC) 5 13 5 5 0
People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR) 3 7 5 5 0
Site-specific Knowledge of Conservation Issues
Villagers, students and teachers, and the general public comprise the biggest numbers of visitors to the
project site. Close to 38% have visited the area with around 30% having heard about it.
Table 8: Treaded the Project Site
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Visited this area 78 23 15 40 10 38
Heard about this area 15 43 50 50 10 30
Never heard about the area 3 27 30 10 50 20
Have knowledge about the
area
3 10 10 4
Never visited this area 5 3 5 20 20 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist
People’s Biodiversity Register (PBR)
Biodiversity ManagementCommittee (BMC)
Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Ramsar Site
Awareness about Bioiversity Terminiologies (in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 57
A leisurely trip as a picnic has taken almost 33% respondents there while for specialist groups such as
wildlife photographers or tourist guides, the Gosa Bara Wetland Complex has been a birdwatchers delight,
with weekly or fortnightly visits being the norm.
Table 9: Purpose of Visit
(in percentage)
Purpose Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Picnic 39 29 100 38 0 33
Bird Watching 10 43 0 25 0 13
Any other specify 26 14 0 25 0 18
Study Tour 3 43 0 0 0 7
Farming 23 0 0 0 0 11
Nature Camp 10 0 0 25 0 8
As a Tourist 6 0 0 13 100 8
Fishing 0 14 0 0 0 2
38
30
20
49
Treaded the Project Site(in percentage)
Visited this area
Heard about this area
Never heard about thearea
Have knowledge aboutthe area
Never visited this area
Final Report by CEC 58
Respondents consider the importance of the site more as a wetland (36%) than specifically as a coastal
wetland (19%) while a significant percentage (22%) do not know much about the importance of the site.
Table 10: Importance of Project Site
(in percentage)
Significance Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Coastal wetland 5 10 23 57 33 19
Wetland 57 29 23 14 17 36
Island 3 5 0 0 0 2
Protected area 0 10 15 0 33 7
Its biodiversity 3 29 15 14 0 12
No significance 0 5 0 7 0 2
Don't know 32 14 23 7 17 22
Having seen many birds at the wetland during their visit, 45% the respondents know that this area is known for
birds while the 25% understand that these birds are specifically migratory birds.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
Tourist
General Public
College Student
School Student
Villager
Purpose of Visit(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 59
Table 11: Linkage of Project Site
(in percentage)
Linkage with Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Birds 85 60 55 70 35 45
Migratory birds 43 50 35 30 5 25
Animals 8 3 0 35 0 6
Salt Pan 3 3 0 15 0 3
Medicinal plants and herbs 0 0 10 15 0 3
Mangroves 0 3 0 0 5 1
All 0 3 0 5 10 2
Don't know 10 27 30 5 50 16
When questioned with specific issues related to the conservation of this important wetland, a large number of
respondents identified poaching of birds (16%), fishing (14%), decreasing water in the area (11%) and
diminishing numbers of birds (10%) as the major conservation issues in the project site.
Table 12: Concerns Related to Project Site
(in percentage)
Conservation Issues Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Poaching of birds 18 27 25 35 15 16
Fishing is prevalent 23 10 20 35 15 14
No water in this area 25 7 0 30 15 11
Less no of birds visit this
area
8 13 20 35 5 10
Water is used for
agriculture
18 10 0 25 5 8
Excessive use of fertilizers
and pesticides
0 3 15 10 10 4
Less fish/ food for birds 0 10 0 0 0 2
Sewage or water discharged
in this area
3 0 25 15 10 6
All 3 7 5 10 5 4
Don't know 38 40 30 15 60 25
The issue of salination diminishing the fertility of the land is a recurring response and is a matter of concern to
most respondents. Three major issues affecting the site negatively were identified as overfishing (14%),
pesticide pollution (13%), and industrial waste (12%).
Final Report by CEC 60
Table 13: Threats Impacting the Project Site
(in percentage)
Threats Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Over Fishing 35 20 5 30 15 14
Industrial waste 13 13 30 50 12
Pesticide Pollution 15 27 20 35 10 13
Changes in the landscape
coming from the
construction
5 7 20 35 15 8
Tourism 10 10 5 35 20 9
Encroachment 8 7 5 30 0 6
Salination 8 3 5 20 0 4
Mobile Towers 0 0 10 25 0 3
City's sewage 5 7 10 5 0 3
Invasive species 3 0 15 5 0 2
All 3 13 0 5 20 5
Don't know 33 33 40 10 55 21
There is not much knowledge of the different types of floral species that inhabit the wetland. The species
is mainly used for fuel wood and to some extent for medicinal purposes. While most of the respondents
consider overfishing, pesticide pollution and industrial pollution as the biggest threats to the conservation
of the wetland, villagers have especially identified the three as being the biggest culprits threatening the
conservation of the wetland.
As high as 73% are eager to recommend the site to their friends and family; most respondents feel that
the villagers have a big role to play in maintaining the good health of the wetland and deriving its benefits.
Overall Concerns Related to Project Site(in percentage)
Poaching of birds
Fishing is prevalent
No water in this area
Less no of birds visit thisarea
Water is used foragriculture
Final Report by CEC 61
Table 14: Recommendation to Visit the Project Site
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Recommend 78 67 75 75 70 73
Do not recommend 23 33 25 25 30 27
Role models who have a major role to play in the conservation of the wetland were identified as first the
villagers as they are intrinsically connected with the land (27%), the government (19%), forest officials (13%),
and the NGOs (13%).
Table 15: Role Model in Conservation of Project Site
(in percentage)
Role Model Villager School
Student
College
Student
General
Public
Tourist Total
Villagers 58 30 30 65 40 27
Government 20 53 35 35 15 19
Forest officials 23 23 5 35 20 13
NGOs 8 23 40 25 25 13
School 0 13 15 20 10 6
Fishermen 8 13 0 15 10 6
Eco Guides 0 7 5 5 0 2
Salt Pan Workers 0 3 0 5 0 1
All of the above 0 3 5 25 30 6
Don't know 25 10 5 0 5 7
Even though the understanding on the specifics and technicalities of the wetland, and biodiversity terms was
not very high but its relevance in sustaining them was understood and hence, the wetland was valued largely
by most of the respondents, resulting in an above average understanding of the site-specific issues among the
target audience. A significant 38% valued the site to a great extent while 34% valued it to some extent.
Table 16: Value Assigned with Project Site as Conserved Area
(in percentage)
Value Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
To a great extent 23 50 45 60 25 38
To some extent 35 37 25 25 45 34
To less extent 15 3 5 10 5 8
Not at all 13 0 0 0 5 5
Don't know 15 10 25 5 20 15
Final Report by CEC 62
Benefits from Site-Specific Ecological Services
Respondents are largely aware that they get tangible benefits such as food (40%), fodder (40%), fuel wood
(50%) and fresh water (40%) from the site. While there is awareness on the medicinal uses of the plants that
the site yields, the understanding is comparatively lower compared to its uses for fodder, fuel wood and fresh
water.
Table 17: Tangible Benefits
(in percentage)
Benefits Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists
Food 53 50 60 65 40
Fodder 78 53 25 60 40
Fuel wood 68 40 30 75 50
Fresh water 40 43 60 80 40
Tourism 70 50 30 85 45
Medicinal plants 35 43 45 35 30
Other benefits 25 7 5 5 25
The site draws large numbers of tourists, which boosts the economy of the region, and this aspect iswell
understood by the respondents.
The number of respondents who understand the intangible benefits, which the site yields, is comparatively
lower than the understanding on the tangible benefits from the site. The response on intangible benefits
which the site yields such as clean and pure air (30%), pride of the area (16%), erosion prevention and soil
maintenance, capturing of waste carbon, pest control, pollination, maintenance of genetic diversity has been
quite low.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Tourist
General Public
College Student
School Student
Villager
Tangible Benefits (in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 63
Table 18: Intangible Benefits
(in percentage)
Benefits Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Clean and pure air
60 57 80 55 40 30
Pride of the area
30 33 15 40 40 16
Habitat for species
20 17 0 30 5 8
Health and wellbeing
5 20 0 30 30 8
Waste water treatment
13 23 15 15 30 10
Erosion prevention and
maintenance of soil fertility
3 13 20 10 5 5
Aesthetic value
3 7 0 5 5 2
Recreational opportunities
0 3 10 15 5 3
Captures waste carbon
dioxide
0 3 10 10 2
Pest control
0 0 0 20 15 3
Pollination
3 0 0 5 10 2
Maintenance of genetic
diversity
0 7 0 0 0 1
All 3 7 0 10 0 2
Don't know 23 23 10 5 25 10
The response to the question that is their health and well-being dependant on the site has been a very
confident “yes”, standing at 80% with students returning the most assertive response and villagers following
close behind. The link between the health of the site and economic development is understood to a lesser
extent at 65%. Perhaps the benefits are taken as something which should come to them naturally and are
taken as granted and hence, they are valued only “to some extent” by a majority of the respondents.
Final Report by CEC 64
Table 19: Dependency on Project Site
(in percentage)
Value Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists
Health and well being 75 87 80 85 80
Economic development 48 47 90 65 65
The response has been moderate towardsthe query on preservation of the site for floral and faunal beauty
(20%), tourism (20%), livelihood (18%), and promoting ecological balance (17%). On the contrary, many
villagers feel the land should not be protected as it diminishes the value of the land.
Table 20: Reasons Cited for Conserving the Project Site
(in percentage)
Reasons Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
To preserve the floral and
faunal diversity
25 40 15 55 40 20
To promote tourism 28 20 15 65 50 20
To support livelihood 25 27 55 30 25 18
To maintain ecological
balance
13 33 50 45 15 17
Because it has aesthetic
beauty
5 13 5 25 20 7
All 5 10 5 10 5 4
Don't know 35 27 15 0 25 14
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist
Economic development
Health and well being
Dependency on Project Site(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 65
Traditional knowledge and practices existing in the region also contribute in the conservation of the project
site. People generally take care of the food and water needs of the birds around the villages and fields. They
feed the birds and provide water. Local efforts have also been towards saving Porbandar and its surrounding
villages from flooding.
An average level of understanding has been seen in the respondents on the site-specific benefits. There is a
greater understanding on the tangible benefits, and these are perceived to be more as what should be
accruing to them naturally and not too much as things they should be seriously looking to conserve or protect.
Close to 32% understand the value of benefits to a great extent and 42% value it to some extent.
Table 21: Value of Benefits
(in percentage)
Value Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
To a great extent 10 23 45 65 40 32
To some extent 38 53 50 25 40 42
To less extent 18 0 0 5 5 7
Not at all 18 3 0 0 5 7
Don't know 18 20 5 5 10 13
Livelihood concerns are also a major reason on why they feel the site should not be protected as it will curtail
the benefits of fuel-wood etc, which they derive from the site. 10% feel they get no benefits from the site
while 6% take the benefits for granted and as their natural right.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
To preservethe floral
and faunaldiversity
To promotetourism
To supportlivelihood
To maintainecologicalbalance
Because ithas
aestheticbeauty
All Don't know
Villager
School Student
College Student
General Public
Tourist
Total
Reasons Cited for Conserving the Project Site(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 66
Table 22: Why Benefits are not Valued
(in percentage)
Reasons Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourist Total
I don't get any such benefits 18 13 0 0 10 10
It is my right as I live in this
area
8 7 5 0 10 6
Its not helping in the family
income/ livelihood
3 7 0 0 0 2
I am not depending on this
area for anything
0 7 0 0 5 2
Don't know 78 77 95 100 75 80
Initiatives and Willingness for Conserving the Coastal Environment
Conservation efforts to protect the site have not been satisfactory, feel most of the respondents, and while
not completely, 45% would like to be involved to “some extent” in activities to conserve the site.
Table 23: Perception of Engagement in Conservation Efforts
(in percentage)
Perception Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
To a great extent 20 40 15 35 20 26
To some extent 40 40 80 60 15 45
Not at all 15 0 0 5 25 9
Don't know 25 20 5 0 40 19
According to them, even though they would like to, they have not been actively involved in the conserving the
coastal environment as they are not sure what they should do and how should they go about engaging in
conservation activities. There is a tentative willingness to change attitudes and behviours towards
conservation. The hesitation to throw oneself completely into it stems largely from the lack of awareness on
how it could affect them, on concerns that it could reduce livelihood opportunities. On conservation efforts,
62% are somewhat satisfied with the efforts which shows that there is expectation to do more towards site
conservation.
Final Report by CEC 67
Table 24: Satisfaction Level with Conservation Efforts
(in percentage)
Level Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Very satisfied 33 23 30 45 20 30
Somewhat satisfied 60 67 70 45 70 62
Not satisfied 8 10 0 10 10 8
Villagers and the general public are generally willing to help in conservation but with the help of NGOs or the
Government; they would like to take care of the injured birds; prevent pollution; engage in native tree
plantation; use organic products, and attend awareness programmes. Teachers would like to contribute by
organising awareness programmes in their schools and colleges; specialist groups such as tour guides would
like to join in the conservation efforts by creating awareness among visitors about the wetland, keeping the
project site clean and noise free, and also informing the visitors about the various flora and fauna present at
the project site. Another specialist group, the bird watchers, would like to encourage bird nesting and very
interestingly, distribute bird nests as return gifts on birthdays. All the stakeholders displayed a willingness to
engage in activities that would create awareness on keeping the project site clean and pollution free.
Table 25: Initiatives to Conserve Biodiversity of Project Site
(in percentage)
Initiatives Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Grow native plants or
plantation and avoid
deforestation
63 80 50 50 65 30
Take care of the injured
birds
63 57 65 75 45 29
Creating awareness about
protection of biodiversity of
the a
23 40 25 20 15 12
Work with local NGOs for
biodiversity conservation
5 23 50 25 15 10
Participate in related
events/ campaigns
3 13 20 25 5 5
Report any wildlife crime to
the concerned authority
13 13 15 15 0 5
Don't know 25 7 5 25 25 9
Final Report by CEC 68
Vision of the Future State of the Environment
Biodiversity is seen as “very important” to their future by 59% respondents who would like to see the site rich
in floral and faunal diversity, attracting more tourists and as an area of international importance, though
understanding on the future state of the environment has been seen to be “average”.
Table 26: Perception of Biodiversity as an Important Issue
(in percentage)
Perception Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Very important 43 70 65 65 65 59
Somewhat important 23 20 35 30 30 26
Not too important 5 0 0 0 0 2
Not a problem 0 0 0 0 0 1
Don't know 30 10 0 0 5 12
30
29
12
10
5
5
9
Initiatives to Conserve Biodiversity of Project Site(in percentage)
Grow native plants or plantationand avoid deforestation
Take care of the injured birds
Creating awareness aboutprotection of biodiversity of thea
Work with local NGOs forbiodiversity conservation
Participate in related events/campaigns
Final Report by CEC 69
Table 27: Future Envisioning of Project Site
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Very rich in floral and faunal
diversity
30 60 30 45 40 24
More protected and
conserved
18 40 70 35 40 22
Recognised as an area of
international conservation
importance
8 13 30 30 15 10
Should have good amount
of water
10 23 25 40 20 13
Recognised as an economic
hub
3 10 20 35 25 9
Developed with all the
modern amenities
0 7 0 20 15 4
Remain in same status 5 0 0 0 5 1
All 13 20 0 20 10 8
Don't know 33 13 0 0 10 9
24
22
10
13
9
41
8
9
Future Envisioning of Project Site(in percentage) Very rich in floral and faunal
diversity
More protected and conserved
Recognised as an area ofinternational conservationimportanceShould have good amount of water
Recognised as an economic hub
Developed with all the modernamenities
Remain in same status
All
Don't know
Final Report by CEC 70
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Villager SchoolStudent
CollegeStudent
GeneralPublic
Tourist Total
Books
Radio
Mobile
Internet
Newspaper
Television
Books
Radio
Mobile
Internet
Newspaper
Preferred and Reliable Method of Communication(in percentage)
Communication Needs
One of the most important aspects towards gauging the level of understanding of the respondent group on
biodiversity issues is to understand how they get their information, the communication modes available,
accessible and preferred by the respondents. Villagers, general public and guides mostly read regional
newspapers such as Sandesh, Gujarat Samachar, Jai Hind, Ful Chab, Divya Bhaskar. Teachers, bird watchers,
tourists and students read both regional and national newspapers i.e. Times of India, Indian Express, Telegraph
and The Hindu.As a mode of obtaining information, television is preferred more (37%) than the newspaper
(25%) while accessing the internet as a mode of information is seen more in students, tourists and teachers
rather than the villagers and the general public. The television and newspaper are the preferred sources of
information over other communication modes as these are seen to be more reliable and easily available.
Table 28: Preferred and Reliable Method of Communication
(in percentage)
Communication Methods Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Television 85 80 80 100 75 37
Newspaper 53 67 55 70 45 25
Internet 20 50 55 10 55 16
Mobile 5 27 25 10 25 7
Radio 20 13 5 40 25 9
Books 5 23 20 10 10 6
Final Report by CEC 71
News on environment and science are the two top issues respondents are most interested in. Apart from the
television and newspaper as preferred and reliable modes of seeking information, the respondents also seek
out relevant and reliable information on environment in general and biodiversity specifically from their peer
groups, teachers, eco-clubs and the Panchayat. Students, teachers, tourists and the general public have also
cited books, nature education camps and government documents as an important source of information.
Around 47% have participated in awareness activities while almost a similar percentage, 49%, has not
participated in any awareness activity.
Table 29: Participation in Awareness Activities
(in percentage)
Response Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Participated 43 59 60 44 26 47
Didn't participate 54 38 40 50 63 49
Don't remember 3 3 6 11 4
Those that have participated have found the activities to be very useful in raising awareness (46%) while 33%
have found it useful to some extent.
Table 30: Positive Impact of Awareness Activities
(in percentage)
Impact Villager School
Student
College
Student
General
Public
Tourist Total
Very useful 35 67 55 40 35 46
Useful to some extent 33 23 40 50 25 33
Not much useful 3 0 0 0 0 1
Not at all useful 3 0 0 0 5 2
Don't know 28 10 5 10 35 18
The key messages identified from organized activities such as fairs, workshops and camps activities identified
by respondents have largely been about birds (29%), in general, and injuries to birds due to kite-flying (20) and
about migratory birds (12%).
Final Report by CEC 72
Table 31: Key Messages or Themes of Awareness Activities
(in percentage)
Messages/ Themes Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
About Birds 50 47 20 55 60 29
Bird Injuries due to Kite Flying 15 33 60 45 30 20
Migratory Birds 15 23 25 35 5 12
Biodiversity conservation of the
area
3 23 15 35 15 10
Feeding of birds 3 7 5 10 10 4
Importance of the project site 3 7 15 5 3
Marine Biodiversity 0 7 5 0 15 3
Coastal wetlands 5 0 5 0 10 2
Don't know 43 20 15 25 25 17
Such activities were primarily perceived as being targeted towards students and the general public; these have
been seen to be very effective and important in creating awareness and motivating people to conserve the rich
biodiversity of the project site, across respondent groups.
29
2012
10
4
33
217
Key Messages of Themes on Awareness Activities(in percentage)
About Birds
Bird Injuries due to KiteFlyingMigratory Birds
Biodiversity conservationof the areaFeeding of birds
Importance of the projectsiteMarine Biodiversity
Coastal wetlands
Don't know
Final Report by CEC 73
Table 32: Target Audience for Awareness Activities
(in percentage)
Target Audience Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
School children 25 47 55 65 30 27
General Public 25 20 40 40 25 19
Teachers 8 10 30 30 35 13
Villagers 38 7 35 30 5 16
Don't know 35 27 5 10 20 15
All 5 13 15 20 25 9
Tourists 0 7 5 5 10 3
A crucial aspect is the general lack of time (21%), lack of interest (19%) and language barrier in understanding
conservation issues. One reason is the low levels of literacy at the project site. However, an important and
recurring response has been that designating the site as a protected area and too many conservation activities
will mean that the natural resources have been “taken away from them” and a “loss of livelihood” to the
stakeholders. Alternative livelihood options are not available and hence, site conservation is not high on the
priority list neither is it much desired.
Table 33: Key Barriers in Creating Awareness for Behavioural Change
(in percentage)
Barriers Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Lack of interest in the issue 28 43 45 65 55 19
Lack of time 35 43 60 60 60 21
Language 33 23 25 35 45 14
Have other priorities 18 13 45 25 35 11
Lack of knowledge about
the subject
15 13 20 40 10 8
Lack of resources 10 23 25 20 25 8
Use of technical language 23 23 10 10 10 7
Family's disapproval 8 33 15 25 0 7
Don't know 13 10 0 5 5 3
Regular and sustained interventions by NGOs and clubs such as the Lions Club and the Rotary Club, free
awareness camps, a Nagar Palika Award, and regular media coverage of positive environment conservation
efforts, rallies, and regular advertisement s on conservation issues related to the project site in newspapers
and on preferred television channels have been suggested as impactful methods to raise awareness and get
more people involved in conserving the biodiversity of the Gosa Bara Wetland Complex.
Final Report by CEC 74
Table 34: Motivational Tools to Conserve Biodiversity
(in percentage)
Tools Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Reinforce conservation
messages through different
activities
50 50 50 45 45 35
Frequent Campaigns 13 33 20 65 40 22
Felicitate the champions
with Green ambassador
awards
10 10 25 45 20 14
Provide economic
incentives
8 23 20 35 30 15
All 5 7 0 10 10 4
Don't know 28 7 15 0 15 10
Teachers (38%), celebrities (14%), Panchayat heads (14%), and religious leaders (11%) have an important role
to play in motivating people towards conservation, according to the respondents. Sports personalities, bird
watchers, and well-known environmentalists were identified as another important group of stakeholders who
could help to motivate people in conserving the wetland.
Table 35: Role Model for Communicating Biodiversity Conservation Messages
(in percentage)
Role Model Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Teachers 35 73 75 75 65 38
Celebrities 8 30 15 25 40 13
Panchayat heads 33 17 15 25 20 14
Religious Leaders 23 13 5 20 25 11
Community Leaders 10 13 10 30 5 8
Politicians 8 27 5 35 40 13
Talati cum Mantri 8 3 0 0 10 3
Final Report by CEC 75
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Total
Tourist
General Public
College Student
School Student
Villager
Role Model for Communicating Biodiversity Conservation Messages(in percentage)
Final Report by CEC 76
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study “Baseline Research on the Awareness on Biodiversity in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas” was for
establishing a benchmark on the information and awareness levels of relevant stakeholders in respect to the
importance of conserving marine and coastal biodiversity in areas they are directly concerned with.
The benchmark indicators comprise:
• Individual level of general awareness on biodiversity issues.
• Site-specific knowledge of conservation issues.
• Knowledge about benefits derived from site-specific ecological services.
• Level of willingness to change personal behaviour (or income generating activities) in order to
conserve the coastal environment.
• Perception of the future in respect to the state of the environment.
• Communication Needs
Overall, the level of understanding on issues related to the biodiversity and conservation concerns of the Gosa
Bara Wetland Complex is above average, standing at 31%. College students have shown the highest levels of
awareness followed by villagers, the general public and tourists. Where technical terms are introduced such as
the Ramsar Site, Biodiversity Act 2002, or the BMC and the PBR, the responses have been vague.
Table 36: Biodiversity Awareness Level of the Affected Population
(in percentage)
Awareness Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 0 7 0 15 5 5
Very Good 3 20 0 15 20 11
Good 33 23 40 30 30 31
Fair 43 40 55 35 30 41
Poor 23 10 5 5 15 13
However, when specific options have been cited on the indicators, which they have been likely to experience
in their daily lives, the responses have been more forthcoming, standing at an overall level of 42% with college
students showing the highest awareness followed by villagers.
Table 37: Site-specific Knowledge Level
(in percentage)
Level Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 3 3 0 15 10 5
Very Good 8 27 15 25 10 16
Good 43 37 65 35 30 42
Fair 25 17 15 15 20 19
Poor 23 17 5 10 30 18
The overall knowledge level of respondents has been good at 44% which is good news for the project site as
awareness goes a long way in inculcating positive behaviours towards environment conservation. Also
hearteningly, villagers at 45% have shown a good level of knowledge on conservation issues, while college
students due to higher levels of education have shown 65% understanding of issues.
Final Report by CEC 77
Table 38: Knowledge Level of the Affected Population about Benefits Derived from Site-Specific Ecological
Services
(in percentage)
Assessment Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Excellent 3 3 5 20 5
Very Good 8 20 15 35 10 16
Good 45 50 65 30 25 44
Fair 23 20 15 10 25 19
Poor 23 7 5 20 20 15
Significantly, a major concern, which has emerged from the baseline research, has been a general level of
unwillingness to engage in conservation activity with only 40% willing to change personal behaviour towards
conservation.
Table 39: Willingness Level to Change Personal Behaviour
(in percentage)
Willingness Villagers School
Students
College
Students
General
Public
Tourists Total
Very high 8 10 20 15 15 12
High 8 27 15 40 10 18
Average 40 43 55 35 25 40
Low 25 17 10 10 35 20
Very low 20 3 0 0 15 9
On the surface while, this is the story, there is an underlying concern on declaring the site as a protected area
or stepping up conservation activities, which is worrying the respondents — once the project site is declared as
protected, they will no longer be able to derive their sustenance from it such as fish, fuel wood, and medicines.
The lack of alternative livelihood options and the cordoning off the site, as a protected will affect them
negatively, which is why they are not too keen to engage in conservation activities.
Where organized activities, technical terms and the digital media come in, the response has been higher from
teachers, students and tourists. Where the impacts are visible on the ground and the grass roots changes
influencetheir daily activities, the villagers have been more forthcoming.
In terms of tangible benefits, the wetland yields irrigation to 14 villages while fishing is an important source of
livelihood. The site also yields many intangible benefits to the people. It provides a good site for bird watching
and photography; preserving the aesthetic value of the site will not only attract tourists but also prove to be a
draw for the local population and the students while providing a thriving habitat for a variety of birds and fish.
With internet accessibility limited among the respondents owing to the low levels of literacy and awareness of
the digital domain, television is the most preferred source of information followed by the newspaper. A
regular, sustained intervention by the government, NGOs, and forest officers, though, is being seen as an
impactful method to raise awareness levels on the biodiversity issues of the project site and get more people
involved.
Final Report by CEC 78
The perception levels with regards to the future state of the environment has been average at 45% with
college students at 55% showing the highest future perception levels and villagers standing at 43%.
Table 40: Perception Level with Regards to Future State of Environment
(in percentage)
Perception Villager School
Student
College
Student
General
Public
Tourist Total
Very high 5 10 0 25 25 12
High 13 30 40 35 15 25
Average 43 53 55 35 40 45
Low 25 3 5 5 5 11
Very low 15 3 0 0 15 8
Providing people with alternative sources of livelihood is also seen as an important input, which will help to
mould behaviours, and attitudes positively towards conservations as the livelihood concern will be then
adequately met. When the daily struggle is to be able to earn a decent livelihood, conserving biodiversity
might seem like an onerous task, though, the good health of the biodiversity is what will sustain the local
population, in the end. Hence, regular awareness raising activities, workshops, fairs, government intervention,
and raising the levels of education need to be intensively focused upon to establish the linkage between
flourishing biodiversity health and flourishing local lifestyles.
Important Issues affecting Biodiversity of Project Site
Birds
• Poaching of birds.
• Windmills come in the route of migratory birds and kill them.
Mining
• Birds get killed after eating groundnuts and cumin seeds (jeera) which is full of pesticide.
• Chemical fertilizeris drained in the rainy season and affects the birds and fishes.
Overfishing
• Fishing nets is seen to be a major concern. Besides small fish, birds and snakes also are caught in Gosa
Bara.
• Turtles get caught in the nets while fishing
• Labourers indulge in illegal fishing.
Initiatives taken for conservation by organisations
• Creating awareness among fishermen to release turtles and birds stuck in their nets and give free nets
• Banning heavy vehicles
• Prohibiting motor fishing
• Ban on fishing
Final Report by CEC 79
Recommendations
• Awareness activities are making an impact. It has been reinformced that Govt should also provide
alternate livelihood opportunities to fishermen to motivate them.
• Lack of interest in the issue, lack of knowledge in the subject and lack of time are key barriers for
engendering behaviour change on biodiversity conservation.
• Stakeholders are willing to be engaged in conserving the coastal biodiversity provided they get the
support from NGOs and Government.
• Sustained intervention by NGOs, Govt and forest officers in raising awareness on how conserving the
biodiveristy of the site is directly linked to their economic and social well-being.
• Willingness to change personal behaviour for conservation is directly related to dependance on project
site.
Providing alternative livelihood options to the peopleneeds to be looked at actively so that they turn
their attention to the conservation of the site and not look at it merely as a source of earning their
livelihood.
• Raising the education levels of the people will go a long way in enabling their access to more information
about why they should conserve biodiversity while opening their minds to biodiversity and its symbiotic
importance in their lives.
• Majority concerns on the salinity declining the fertility of the land need to be addressed.
• Most preferred role models for communicating biodiversity conservation messages are community
leaders and teachers, and their role in raising awareness needs to be expanded by intensifying their
engagement via workshops.
• Some of the stakeholders have not been able to correlate economic development with biodiversity and
the value of the benefits derived from the project site.Greater intervention by government, NGOs and
experts needs to establish the seminal linkage.
• More innovative suggestions such as the one given by bird watchers on giving away birds’s nests as return
gifts on birthdays need to be explored.
About the StudyThe “Baseline study on the Biodiversity awareness in Selected Marine and Coastal Areas in Gujarat” establishes a benchmark on the current information, awareness and appreciation levels of key stakeholders towards coastal and marine biodiversity. The study focused on analyzing the results of the field surveys to make recommendations for impact oriented information, education and communication (IEC) strategies for the coastal wetlands in Gujarat.
The CMPA ProjectThe Project “Conservation and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas” (CMPA)is a project of the Indo-German technical cooperation. It is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) and implemented by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), Government of India, and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of BMUB.
Established to support the achievement of the Aichi targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Project’s overall goal is to contribute to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in selected areas along the coast of India. Taking into consideration the economic importance of the coastal zone for large segments of the population, the Project’s approach is people-centered, thus ensuring the support for conservation by those depending on coastal ecosystems.
29C
MPA
Tec
hnic
al R
epor
t Ser
ies
Baseline study on the Biodiversity Awareness in
Selected Marine and Coastal Areas in Gujarat
November 2016
Indo-German Biodiversity ProgrammeConservation and Sustainable Management of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas